Conflict Identified as Crypto.com Trading on its Own Platform
Trading practices at Crypto.com, the Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange, have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest within the digital assets industry.
Citing a number of unnamed sources, the Financial Times (FT) made the claim in a report published on Monday.
Conflict of interest
In traditional financial markets, exchanges typically match buyers with sellers at competitive transparent prices, while market making and proprietary trading are conducted by separate private companies. However, US regulators have recently cracked down on similar activities at digital asset exchanges. Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, faced 13 charges from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including allegations of manipulative trading to inflate trading volume.
The presence of internal traders at Crypto.com has not been widely known since the company’s launch in 2016. The FT’s sources claim that Crypto.com executives provided sworn statements to external trading houses denying the company’s involvement in trading activities.
Employees were allegedly instructed to deny the existence of an internal market-making operation. In response to inquiries, Crypto.com denied that employees were asked to lie, stating that their internal market maker functioned similarly to third-party market makers, ensuring tight spreads and efficient markets on their platform.
The majority of Crypto.com’s revenue reportedly comes from its app for retail traders, where the company acts as the counterparty for transactions and operates as a broker model. The company’s trading team hedges these positions on various venues, including their own exchange, to maintain risk neutrality. Crypto.com emphasized that their exchange provides a level playing field for institutional traders.
According to insiders, Crypto.com’s proprietary trading desk engages in trading activities on the company’s exchange and other platforms, solely focused on generating profits rather than facilitating an exchange. The market making desk, on the other hand, aims to enhance liquidity on the platform.
Not a revenue source
Crypto.com defended its practices by stating that comparing trading volumes to competitors is common in the industry. It said that the company’s priority is to continuously improve order book liquidity and reduce spreads, benefiting all participants. The firm told Decrypt that trading is not a source of revenue: “While we do have some market making activity, for example, we have internal market makers for our CFTC-regulated product Up/Downs in the United States.”
As a private company, Crypto.com publishes accounts in different countries, but revenue breakdown by business line is not disclosed.
Closure of institutional trading
Following the SEC’s enforcement actions, earlier this month Crypto.com announced the closure of its exchange for institutional US traders due to limited demand in the current market landscape, effective from June 21.
In any marketplace transparency and fairness are crucial. It’s fair to say that there has been some level of sharp practice among some actors in the marketplace while regulators have been lacking in getting up to speed with the emergent sector, and moving to protect consumers. With the major crypto platform failures of 2022 has come renewed interest in resolving these issues. That may make for some short-term difficulty, but in the longer term, it should mean greater protections for market participants so long as a common sense approach is pursued.
